1922 Rules Change Discussion

[ctwaterman]

Fix bayonetts and Charge its our only chance....

[snip]

might have to work that in at some point in some story, tho i don't see me needing to use it first. ;D

[Darman]

Referring to your comment about how American artillery units had/used more ammo than their counterparts... what if we made artillery ammunition expenditure a function of the number of large battles that take place?  For every pitched battle that the corps takes part in it uses X amount of ammunition per artillery rating.  That might serve to slow down the operational tempo of wars... especially if you say that the ammunition has to be on-hand for it to be used.  It means stockpiles (even for small armies) become important.  But it also means that wars take a little longer to finish, and probably a lower operational tempo as well. 

[Nobody]

This discussion reminds me of what I think is a flaw in our land warfare system: Everything is exactly proportional!
Instead I would expect more modern units to get "more efficient". This could for example mean that, while a more modern unit has more firepower and needs more ammunition, it should need less ammo to inflict the same amount of damage.

Just one quick example

Fighting Rating	ammo need	"efficiency"
0,5	0,75	0,67
1	1	1
2	1,5	1,33
3	2	1,5
4	2,5	1,6
5	3	1,67
6	3,5	1,71
7	4	1,75
8	4,5	1,78

[ctwaterman]

Referring to your comment about how American artillery units had/used more ammo than their counterparts... what if we made artillery ammunition expenditure a function of the number of large battles that take place?  For every pitched battle that the corps takes part in it uses X amount of ammunition per artillery rating.  That might serve to slow down the operational tempo of wars... especially if you say that the ammunition has to be on-hand for it to be used.  It means stockpiles (even for small armies) become important.  But it also means that wars take a little longer to finish, and probably a lower operational tempo as well. 

Well when I took over moderating the war I had to slow down the operational tempo.  I took the Orders for November and extended them all the way through Decembe!  The problem being is some of these massive battles were going to be inconclusively fought for weeks at a time.   The Numbers were roughly even reserves to prevent break throughs were on hand so the only way someone was going to win was through grinding attrition and the other army either breaking in Morale, or deciding to fall back to a better position.

Over all World War I styles of Combat.   That meant If the war would have continued I would have expected Orders to be given for Six [6] month incriments not 1 month incriments.   The Comanders [you the players] would plot strategy for the next half year and tacticaly I would fill in some details and determine outcomes.   Ammunition stockpiles as well as food, and medicine would be required to launch major offensives and you the players could figure out where you wanted to try and push an then allocate munitions to those units.   Especially when it would have quickly become apparent to the RRC and MK that they simply cannot supply their entire armies with unlimited Artillary Ammunition for a 6 month period.   Basically If all 50 Corp are involved in Prolonged Offensive or even Defensive operations then you get that 30 BP ammo bill.   But if say 30 Corp are holding static and 20 Corp attacking for only 3 months.... well maybe thats affordable.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Hmm several things.

I don't see why ammo consumption is now an issue- it has been spelled out in the rules for some time and could be planned around.  We simply haven't had much trench warfare.

Ammunition Use

If a nation is engaged in trench warfare, units at the theater - units that are not engaging in combat, too - consume artillery ammunition, at a rate of 1000t per corps per Artillery rating. Ammunition can be stockpiled, the maximum amount is six months of reserve for the entire army - the total 'artillery' rating of one's armed forces.

1000t ammo cost 0.2BP and $0.2.

UK in the Great War had spent more than 4 million tonnes of ammunition, about 5000t per corps per six month.

A. The ammunition requirements of Bavaria's army factored into the decisions to build more BP, to stockpile ammo, and to not push to 7% pop for #units. I felt having sufficient supply was a deterrent.

Granted that is no longer the case - due to upgrades and expansion, right now Bavaria would run an acceptable deficit of -4.36BP if the entire army was fighting at trench warfare levels, but that seems unlikely and there are substantial stockpiles for the older units.

When I was toying with the idea of playing the Mughals, ammo factored into the expectation to have the army consist of a few elite units, and a large number of low grade cav & specialist as 'skirmishers' and 'raiders' that would need little ammo.  Thus the Mughals could field a large force and prevail in open terrain, but minimize their ammo constraints.

My Proposal would be to reduce the amount of Ammo needed per Corp to half of its current value.  Combat Bonus would be given to units who can utilize more ammo.  

Ammo supply was a real life constraint, and there are ways to plan for it, so I'm not overly keen on the first proposal.  I could see a variant on the second proposal - which is to allow people to specify usage rates - minimal normal or lavish. These would also be dependent on such things as one's supply lines capacity.

B. While Rocky indicated at some point that units are born with 6 mo supply- frankly I haven't ever been able to see that in the ammo rule. I've worked it into my assumptions now, but it really should be codified in the rules if that's what the mods believe to be true.

C.

Basically If all 50 Corp are involved in Prolonged Offensive or even Defensive operations then you get that 30 BP ammo bill.   But if say 30 Corp are holding static and 20 Corp attacking for only 3 months.... well maybe thats affordable.

One thing to note- looking at the Dragon army, it would appear that no unit is at 100% strength. Doesn't this modify the effective artillery number and expenditure? Or shouldn't it? Granted, most casualties are in infantry, but the units at 50% should have lost something.

d.

Instead I would expect more modern units to get "more efficient"

I'm not so sure of that. Precision and accuracy weren't the hallmarks of WWI weapons tech. A sniper rifle is extremely efficient ammo wise compared to an MG, but higher small arms numbers generally means more MGs.

An 6" shell may have longer range and hitting power than a 4" shell, and a 1920 unit may have a dedicated medium artillery group a 1914 unit doesn't... but that 6" shell weighs more and takes more powder, and now that you can hit farther, it means there are more potential targets..etc.   

[Sachmle]

B. While Rocky indicated at some point that units are born with 6 mo supply- frankly I haven't ever been able to see that in the ammo rule. I've worked it into my assumptions now, but it really should be codified in the rules if that's what the mods believe to be true.

I too remember that, but also cannot seem to find it in the actual rules.

[snip]

One thing to note- looking at the Dragon army, it would appear that no unit is at 100% strength. Doesn't this modify the effective artillery number and expenditure? Or shouldn't it? Granted, most casualties are in infantry, but the units at 50% should have lost something.

IMO, some of that BP could also be considered new guns, liners ect. I am also spending BP to fix these units so that would most likely be in the form of guns. I did not notice and change in BP consumption when i changed the strength. And yes, the Dragon Army is sort of beat up right now  :'(

I don't see why ammo consumption is now an issue- it has been spelled out in the rules for some time and could be planned around.  We simply haven't had much trench warfare.

Im debaiting when the end of the war comes just devoting several halfs of BP after army repair and airforce construction, to ammo stockpiles for the 5/3 units, this sort of has to do with the way the postwar Dragon army might look then with the current scenario, but still valid for Kirks point. Its not like the instigators of this war went in not knowing the amounts of ammo it would take. If you are planing a war, ammo is something to think about

The ammunition requirements of Bavaria's army factored into the decisions to build more BP, to stockpile ammo, and to not push to 7% pop for #units. I felt having sufficient supply was a deterrent.

As to my stance on this, I have the biggest army, one of the most modern, and no real enemies around aside from the RRC and now the Dutch. There is no incentive to get bigger, only one to get more modern. Now as for BP, the Dragon is awake and is ready to flex its mussel and the way to do that is through industrial might. IIRC, there are only a handful of powers (myself and the RRC included) that would have this problem baring a total trench warfare employment.

I would have expected Orders to be given for Six [6] month incriments not 1 month incriments.   The Comanders [you the players] would plot strategy for the next half year and tacticaly I would fill in some details and determine outcomes. (and the rest goes here)

Now this is worth highlighting. I think this is a great idea, not only could it greatly speed up the prosses of war, but the realism. Of course, some allowances would have to be made if the overall tactical situation changed suddenly (ie. entry of another power into the war)

[Nobody]

d.

Instead I would expect more modern units to get "more efficient"

I'm not so sure of that. Precision and accuracy weren't the hallmarks of WWI weapons tech. A sniper rifle is extremely efficient ammo wise compared to an MG, but higher small arms numbers generally means more MGs.

An 6" shell may have longer range and hitting power than a 4" shell, and a 1920 unit may have a dedicated medium artillery group a 1914 unit doesn't... but that 6" shell weighs more and takes more powder, and now that you can hit farther, it means there are more potential targets..etc.   

Well, look at it this way:
the older unit will likely be using black powder, solid cannonballs, and .58 to .8 inch caliber front-loaders,
while the newer ones will be using dynamite, smokeless powder, grenades and 6 to 8 mm rifles.
And its not only a matter of volume of fire. One could fire for hours at a secured trench without causing much damage, while a single newer grenade might penetrate and therefore be enough.



Come to think of it I would actually think about changing everything. Let me explain:
We need some kind of "Levels", so let's keep them and the fighting force as they are (linear & proportial).
Building these units, however, should be increasingly more expansive. I think about a exponential increase, and upgrading a unit several levels should cost more than building one from scratch. So upgrade cost would be like this: (cost of new unit) - (fraction of cost from old unit).
Upkeep. I think upkeep would mostly be what you pay soldiers, plus food, habitation etc. So it would be linear, but not directly proportional.
Ammo supply, see above. Maybe the cost of ammunition should depend on the units level?

[ctwaterman]

Kirk Said

My Proposal would be to reduce the amount of Ammo needed per Corp to half of its current value.  Combat Bonus would be given to units who can utilize more ammo. 

Ammo supply was a real life constraint, and there are ways to plan for it, so I'm not overly keen on the first proposal.  I could see a variant on the second proposal - which is to allow people to specify usage rates - minimal normal or lavish. These would also be dependent on such things as one's supply lines capacity.

B. While Rocky indicated at some point that units are born with 6 mo supply- frankly I haven't ever been able to see that in the ammo rule. I've worked it into my assumptions now, but it really should be codified in the rules if that's what the mods believe to be true.

Hey I have always been for planning your wars... and your ammunitions requirements.  I too could never find the part where it said 6 months ammo supply was included in the construction of the unit but it appears to be something that has become part of the game.   Some of us have 6 Months supply of ammo sitting in reserve many of us dont ???

Quote
One thing to note- looking at the Dragon army, it would appear that no unit is at 100% strength. Doesn't this modify the effective artillery number and expenditure? Or shouldn't it? Granted, most casualties are in infantry, but the units at 50% should have lost something.
IMO, some of that BP could also be considered new guns, liners ect. I am also spending BP to fix these units so that would most likely be in the form of guns. I did not notice and change in BP consumption when i changed the strength. And yes, the Dragon Army is sort of beat up right now

Now that is a very good question the two Armys of China both came out suffering between 35% and 40% casualties among their units.  In one instance Cavalry actually hit some MK Corp in the Rear causing heavy damage to those units Artillary and Logistics Units...   I actually dont see a reason not to say a unit with 35% damage needs 35% less ammo.... but will need to discuss this with Maddox and Guinness.  I think a good discussion always helps us make up our minds.

Come to think of it I would actually think about changing everything. Let me explain:
We need some kind of "Levels", so let's keep them and the fighting force as they are (linear & proportial).
Building these units, however, should be increasingly more expansive. I think about a exponential increase, and upgrading a unit several levels should cost more than building one from scratch. So upgrade cost would be like this: (cost of new unit) - (fraction of cost from old unit).
Upkeep. I think upkeep would mostly be what you pay soldiers, plus food, habitation etc. So it would be linear, but not directly proportional.
Ammo supply, see above. Maybe the cost of ammunition should depend on the units level?

The Ammo utilization or cost per unit is depended upon that units tech level.   Basically a 6/4 unit utilizes 4x as much ammo as say a 4/1 Cavalry unit.  So ammunition is already sort of tied to unit tech level.

Charles

[Sachmle]

I've never been a big fan of the

If a nation is engaged in trench warfare, units at the theater - units that are not engaging in combat, too - consume artillery ammunition, at a rate of 1000t per corps per Artillery rating. Ammunition can be stockpiled, the maximum amount is six months of reserve for the entire army - the total 'artillery' rating of one's armed forces.

bit. Why should units NOT IN COMBAT be using ammo? Is this saying that those units are forwarding their ammo to the units that are fighting? Then what do they use when they're rotated to the front in a combat role? If this is so, what's the point of "Reserves" if they won't have any ammo?

And for the hell of it, for me to have a 6mo stockpile I'd need $11.40 and 11.4BP worth of 1905 Advanced ammo. Now if we include forts in our ammo stockpiles, that would increase it to $16.80/16.8BP of 1905 and $2.40/2.4BP of 1895 Baseline ammo.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Bavaria currently has 35,000 tons advanced ammo and 1,000tons cutting edge.  It's not 6 months, but combined with our production capacity will allow us to fight at full tilt for ~1 year. Thats after the initial ammo organic to units runs out, so 18mo. Not horrid. Factor in quiet fronts, it gets much better.

Though I agree that units in theater, but not fighting shouldn't be running through ammo...they aren't fighting so what are they shooting at?

In terms of efficiency, I think it's not the main variable when increasing levels.

It's  more a matter of QF weapons allowing a greater weight of fire, railroads and autos allowing that to be supplied, in conjunction with professional armies with skilled aimed fire giving way to mass armies of indifferent training. Doh, forgot the point - I think you hit diminishing returns quickly. So the QF 75mm gun allows you a big increase, the QF105mm is a much slighter increase. This is also present in the ratings - the 4/2 Inf jumps 50% to 5/3, then 33% to 6/4 then 20%...)

I'll also note that while a 6/4 inf unit uses 1/3 more ammo than a 5/3, a 6/2 cav/mountain/jungle/light/kommando/marine unit uses less than either. Specialist units are limited in ways, but if you've got people and terrain, they are more sustainable.

One issue I'd also like to question is rebuilding costs. Most losses are infantry. The basic rifleman takes a disproportionate amount of casualties. So rebuilding should be cheaper overall.

Further, I've been thinking of building some 'baseline' infantry units as training/replacement Corps for the frontline units, but current mechanisms wouldn't recognise that arrangement.

[miketr]

My issue is that ammo relative to unit costs is crazy.  Plus I have a number of books on ammo production and other economic mobilization for the great war.  Its all buried in various threads.  Short answer is it took about 2 years for nations to hit max effort and then continued but slower increase afterwards.

I also suggested increased cash / BP in full war mode.  The tax system being toyed with as a replacement for cash / BP (for N4 if / when that becomes needed) does fix these issues whatever other objections I have with it.


Michael 

[Desertfox]

I for one don't care about the ammo rules. Any war involving NS will be decided on the seas. I have but 2 Corps that can be deployed outside NS, and only Firanj has a substantial land border with me. A war there would be alot more fluid with limited ammo expenditure.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I put this up once before.  Not quite on topic, but perhaps useful for scale when talking expense.

Basically, to sustain a corps for 6 months in heavy combat would take 25-50pd/man/day.  Thats 5-10x more than inactivity.

Working from the low end of 25lbs, that would be 112,500tons to sustain 1 corps for 6 months.

That sounds expensive to me :)